Dane County committee approves ordinance changes to human services contracting, adds transparency and short-term contract rule

The Health and Human Needs Committee on June 16 approved an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Dane County Code that clarifies the county's process for human services contracts, increases disclosure in budget appendices and authorizes short-term contracts to prevent interruptions in service.

Committee members said the ordinance change responds to previous gaps in process documentation and to the practical need to have some contracts in place at the start of the calendar year. Chuck, county staff, explained the ordinance was originally adopted around 2017 following a Baker Tilly review and that the current revisions codify the process used to handle a high volume of human services contracts tied to annual budget timing. "If it was required for all the contracts to go through the county board by resolution, things would grind to a halt," he said, arguing the change keeps services from lapsing at Jan. 1.

The amendment keeps the existing distinction between "major" and nonmajor contracts — major contracts remain those exceeding $100,000 — and spells out addendum rules. It requires that Appendix A in the operating budget list vendors, division names, program or programs served and the respective dollar amounts for each program, increasing transparency beyond the previous vendor-and-total format.

A new provision allows departments to execute short-term contracts of up to 90 days without full board action if a service would otherwise be disrupted, with a requirement that the full county board be notified within seven days of such an execution. The ordinance also clarifies approval paths where addenda take a contract above the $100,000 threshold: addenda over 10% of the contract value or that push a contract into major-contract territory trigger committee review; some addenda will require action by Health and Human Needs and Personnel & Finance and notification to the full board.

Supervisors raised concerns the rules could be circumvented by splitting contracts; Supervisor Glaser asked whether multiple smaller contracts to the same vendor could be used to avoid review. Chuck said the ordinance intends to prevent that type of step-transaction avoidance and that department practice and RFP responses would be considered when determining intent. "If the rationale is to circumvent board rule, it doesn't meet the criteria in the ordinance," Chuck said.

Committee Chair Miles and others said the change aligns human services contracting rules more closely with other departments that already have director-level authority for lower-dollar contracts. Supporters said the added requirement for program-level line items in Appendix A should improve oversight at budget time and during later contract amendments.

Following discussion and two amendments noted in the committee minutes (recorded as actions by Health and Human Needs), the committee moved the ordinance as "sub 1 as amended by HHS" and voted to recommend approval to the County Board.

The ordinance amendment will next go to the full County Board for final action.